A close-up look at NYC education policy, politics,and the people who have been, are now, or will be affected by acts of corruption and fraud. ATR CONNECT assists individuals who suddenly find themselves in the ATR ("Absent Teacher Reserve") pool and are the "new" rubber roomers, and re-assigned. The terms "rubber room" and "ATR" mean that you or any person has been targeted for removal from your job. A "Rubber Room" is not a place, but a process.

Monday, September 7, 2015

New Rules For Teacher Tenure and Removal, Effective July 2015

We at ADVOCATZ are still digesting the changes to 3020-a process and substance, but the way we defend members at 3020-a (as Union Reps should, we believe), will not change. We collaborate with the Respondent and use whatever document proves his/her innocence and/or mitigates punishment. And we use the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the charging papers, and any law, rule or regulation defined under due process rights.

I would like to make a comment about Cadet rights, described below. If you do not speak to an investigator, and you do not testify at a 3020-a, you will be found guilty of your charges and terminated. Don't do it. Create an answer to all questions ahead of time that defends your position, and stick to it.

1.On
February 1, 1994, a 3020a hearing panel determined that Andre Cadet, a tenured
teacher, was guilty of misconduct with regard to his romantic relationship with
a female student.The panel dismissed
the charge of insubordination related to Cadet’s refusal to answer questions
before the Special Commissioner of Investigations (SCI).

2.On
April 1, 1996, the Appeal of the Board of Education of the City School District
of the City of New York against Andre Cadet was held.

3.While
the Commissioner of Education upheld the appeal in part, the Commissioner
agreed with the conclusion of the hearing panel chair that the authority cited
by the New York City School District regarding Cadet’s obligation to testify
before the SCI was in conflict with Education Law 3020-a, since that statute is
the sole method by which tenured teachers can be disciplined in New York State.

4.As a
result of this decision, a teacher need not answer questions in any pre-hearing
investigation, which precedes a 3020-a proceeding.

5.If a
tenured teacher is asked questions in an investigation that the teacher
believes could lead to disciplinary action, the teacher has the right to assert
Cadet.By doing so, the teacher cannot
be held insubordinate when refusing to answer such questions."

Chapter 56 of the Laws of
2015 includes a number of amendments to New York State (NYS) Education Law that
address teacher preparation and certification, tenure, annual professional
performance reviews (APPR), testing reduction, school receivership, and teacher
removal. ThisNYSUT Fact Sheetwill
provide an overview of the specific changes affecting teacher tenure and
removal.

NYS is widely recognized
for its exemplary teaching force and has earned high marks for its rigorous
standards and credentialing requirements — typically ranking among the nation’s
top ten[1]. Tenure is just one of the safeguards NYS
has put in place to ensure every student has an effective teacher. A teacher mustearntenure
after successfully completing a probationary period of effective teaching,
oversight and evaluation. A tenured teacher then is entitled to a fair
hearing before being dismissed — a basic right to due process.

Tenure also provides
teachers freedom to advocate for their students without fear of reprisal.
Because tenure exists, teachers in NYS can speak out freely on issues such as
over-testing; cuts in academic programs; elimination of art, music, foreign
language and other programs; and inappropriate programs and services for
students with disabilities.

Without tenure, working
under the constant threat of arbitrary firing would have a chilling effect on a
teacher’s professional judgment and create an environment that would erode, not
enhance, educational quality.

ThisNYSUT Fact Sheetcontains:

·A summary of the recent changes to tenure;

·Frequently asked questions and answers regarding tenure;

·A summary of changes to the teacher removal process;

·Frequently asked questions and answers regarding teacher
removal;

·Advice to local leaders on this topic; and

·Additional resources

Summary of Tenure Changes

·The new requirement begins with those teachers appointed on or
after July 1, 2015.

·The mandated changes to tenure enacted by Chapter 56 in 2015
specifically tie the granting of tenure to §3012-c and §3012-d of NYS’s
Education Law regarding teacher and principal evaluation law.

·The probationary period is extended from three to four years for
untenured teachers. Boards of Education will no longer be able to specify an
end date to the probationary period and teachers will be notified at their
appointment that tenure will depend on their APPR ratings.

·A teacher seeking tenure would need to attain an effective or
highly effective rating for at least three of the four years. These ratings do
not need to be consecutive.

·A teacher rated ineffective in the fourth year cannot receive
tenure at that time. A Board of Education can agree to extend the probationary
period an additional year (thus offering a fifth probationary year). The
law does not prohibit additional years of probation.

·A tenured teacher in a school district or BOCES who obtains
employment in another district will now have a three year probationary period,
provided the teacher did not receive an ineffective in their last year at the
prior school.

·School boards will be able to terminate probationary teachers
without regard to their Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) rating.

Questions & Answers
Regarding Tenure

Q: What is tenure?

A:Tenure is simply a statutory right to due process that was first
enacted for New York City teachers in 1897 and expanded to cover Union Free
School districts in 1937. Teachers were uniquely vulnerable in a public school
setting. There were few, if any policies in place to protect teachers from
being fired. Without job protection, teachers could be fired for literally any
reason. Race, faith, gender and favoritism were some of the most common reasons
for firing teachers before 1885, as was their political affiliation. Women
could even be fired for becoming pregnant. Teacher unions in NYS did not
negotiate the tenure laws. Tenure law was established in State Education Law
decades before teachers’ unions were recognized in NYS.

In 1945, tenure law was amended to
extend basic due process rights to all public school teachers. The tenure law
has been amended several times in the last 40 years.

Q:Who is covered by the new tenure law and when does it
begin?

A:The four-year probation in Chapter 56 applies to all classroom
teachers, building principals, all other members of the teaching and
supervisory staff, teaching assistants, and pupil personnel services providers
appointed by a Board of Education on or after July 1, 2015. The linkage between
the APPR and granting or denying tenure only applies to classroom teachers and
building principals. Section 30.-1.3 of the Regulations define classroom
teacher as a teacher in the classroom teaching service as defined in §80-1.1 of
the Regulations:Classroom teaching
service means teaching service in the public schools of New York State, which
requires certification pursuant to this Part (80), excluding pupil personnel
service or administrative and supervisory service.

·Teacher aides are not covered under the new tenure law.

·Pupil personnel service providers are not included in the
definition of the classroom teaching service. Section 80-1.1(b)(30) of
the Regulations defines pupil personnel services providers to mean school
psychologists, school counselors and school social workers.

For Example:

1.If you
were appointed by a board of educationon
or before June 30, 2015with a
September 1, 2015 start date, you would have a three year probationary period.

2.If you
were appointed by a board of educationon
or after July1, 2015with a September 1, 2015
start date, you would have a four year probationary period.

Q: What happens if
a tenured teacher is appointed to a new tenure area in the same school
district?

A: The
probationary period is now three years instead of two.

Q: What happens if a
teacher has tenure in one district and obtains employment in another district
in NYS?

A: The
probationary period in the new district is now three years instead of two.

Q: What if a teacher has
served in a district for at least two years as a regular substitute classroom
teacher?

A: The new
law says that theprobationary
period would be two years if the teacher received an APPR rating in each of the
two years of substitute service.

Q. Could boards of
education grant tenure after three years (rather than four years) and three
effective or highly effective APPR ratings?

A:
It is not clear. According to Chapter 56, tenure determinations are dependent
upon receiving an APPR rating of effective or highly effective in the fourth
and final year of probation. However, it could be argued that a school
board could grant tenure prior to the fourth year, based on other language in
the statutes that was not amended.

Q: What happens if a
teacher receives an ineffective APPR rating in the fourth and final year of
probation?

A: The
board of education may extend the probationary period for another (fifth) year.
If the teacher successfully appeals the ineffective rating, the teacher would
be immediately eligible for tenure. The law does not prohibit additional
years of probation beyond five.

Q: What is 3020-a and how
does it relate to Due Process?

A:Education Law § 3020-a governs the disciplinary procedures of
tenured teachers and administrators (except superintendents) and provides due
process. Due process consists of the minimum procedural requirements that each
public school district must satisfy when dismissing a teacher who has attained
tenure. Due process is one of the core foundations of our judicial system.
Similar safeguards are in place to ensure police officers, firefighters and
other public servants at the state and local levels cannot be arbitrarily
dismissed based on allegations alone, or for politically motivated reasons. Due
process and tenure areNOTa job
protection for life.

Q. What are the due
process requirements concerning charges of incompetence or misconduct under §
3020-a?

·Charges in writing filed with the school district during the
school year.

·Within five days of receipt of charges, the Board of Education
determines if there is probable cause to bring disciplinary proceedings.

·If yes, a written notice sent to the employee detailing charges,
the penalty imposed if employee waives hearing, and the employee’s rights, sent
by certified or registered mail.

·The employee may be suspended with pay (there are exceptions,
see below).

·Within 10 days of receipt of charges, the employee will notify
the district in writing if they request a hearing.

·The district will notify the Commissioner within 3 (working)
days of the need for a hearing.

·If the employee waives the hearing, the employing board
determines the outcome in 15 days.

·If the employee demands a hearing, such hearing is held before
an impartial hearing officer. Different rules apply to the hearing itself
depending upon the nature of the charges.

Summary of Changes
in the Tenured Teacher Removal Process

Hearings
to discipline or remove tenured teachers in NYS for alleged incompetency or
misconduct are commonly referred to as the 3020-a process, referring to Section
3020-a of Education Law which establishes rights to due process for teachers
who have obtained tenure. Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2015 amended Section
3020 and 3020-a and adds a new Section 3020-b. The following changes are
effective with regard to charges brought on or after July 1, 2015.

Revocation of Teaching Certification

Chapter
56 amended Section 305 of Education Law to extend the duty of the Commissioner
of Education to revoke the certification of a teacher upon certain criminal
convictions. In addition to such automatic license revocation for sex
offense convictions, the Commissioner must now also revoke certification of any
teacher convicted of a violent felony committed against a child when the child
was the intended victim.

Disciplinary Procedure Changes

·Hearings on all charges broughton
or after July 1, 2015will be heard by single
hearing officers.

·At the pre-hearing conference the hearing officer will set a
schedule and manner for “full and fair disclosure” of the witnesses and
evidence to be offered by the employee as part of the defense (in addition to
discovery to be disclosed by the employer as required by current law).

·A child witness under the age of fourteen may be permitted to
testify through the use of live two-way closed circuit television if the
hearing officer determines that the witness would suffer serious mental or
emotional harm if required to testify in person.

·Hearing officers must give serious consideration to the penalty
recommended by the employing Board. If the penalty is rejected by the
hearing officer, the rejection must reflect reasons based upon the record as
expressed in a written determination.

·For charges of physical or sexual abuse of a student:

·A teacher charged with physical or sexual abuse of a student
will have an expedited hearing by a single hearing officer commenced within seven
days after the pre-hearing conference and completed within 60 days after the
pre-hearing conference.

·A teacher may be suspendedwithout
paywhen
charged with physical or sexual abuse of a student pending an expedited
hearing. (This provision does not apply to New York City which has different
rules governing suspension without pay in the NYCDOE/UFT contract.)

·When a Board of Education decides to suspend a teacher without
pay, a probable cause hearing before an impartial hearing officer must be held
within ten days to determine whether the decision to suspend without pay should
be continued or reversed.

·Suspension without pay can last no longer than 120 days from the
decision of the Board of Education to suspend without pay.

Streamlined Procedures for Removing Teachers Rated “Ineffective”

·Chapter 56 repealed the previously-established expedited hearing
process for two consecutive ineffective ratings, and added a new Education Law
§3020-b which establishes procedures for expedited hearings for teachers or
building principals charged with incompetence after receiving either two or
three consecutive ineffective overall APPR ratings under Education Law §3012-c
and/or 3012-d.

·All charges brought on or after July 1, 2015 will be heard by a
single hearing officer.

·Twoconsecutive
ineffective APPR ratings constitute “prima facie” (Latin for "at first
sight”) evidence of incompetence which establishes just cause for
removal. In such a case, a districtmaychoose to file a charge of incompetence. Such evidence can
only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence that the employee is not
incompetent in light of all surrounding circumstances.

·Threeconsecutive
ineffective APPR ratings constitute “prima facie” evidence of incompetence
which establishes just cause for removal. In such a case, a districtmustfile a
charge of incompetence. The evidence of three consecutive ineffective
ratings can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence that the
calculation of one or more of the teacher’s underlying components of the APPRs
was fraudulent. Fraud in this instance shall include mistaken
identity.

Questions & Answers
Regarding Teacher Removal

Q: What
is the timeline for a 3020-a disciplinary hearing?

A:
Generally, the process is as follows:

ACTION

TIMELINE

PROCESS

Filing
of Charges

·Within the period between actual opening and
closing of school year.

·Within three years unless the alleged
misconduct constitutes a crime.

Filed by Chief School
Administrator with the District Clerk. The Clerk notifies Board of Education
(BOE) immediately.

Disposition
of Charges

·The BOE votes within five days after receipt
of charges.

·BOE decision whether there is probable cause
to move forward with a hearing.

The employee may be
suspended with pay pending a hearing and final determination (suspension
without pay may occur if employee has plead guilty or has been convicted of a
felony crime concerning sale or possession of a controlled substance, a
precursor of a controlled substance, drug paraphernalia, or physical abuse of
a minor or student).

Hearing
Request

·Within ten days of receipt of charges,
employee notifies District Clerk to request hearing.

·No request indicates that the right to a
hearing is waived and the BOE will issue a determination within fifteen days.

Upon receipt of the
request for a hearing, the Clerk shall notify the State Education Department
(SED) of the need for a hearing within three working days.

Notice
of Hearing

·SED requests list of hearing officers from
American Arbitration Association.

·Upon receipt, list simultaneously forwarded
to both BOE and employee.

Within fifteen days
after receiving officer list, BOE and employee notify SED of agreed-upon
hearing officer. If no agreement, then SED will appoint the officer.

Pre-Hearing
Conference

·Hearing officer to hold a pre-hearing
conference within ten to fifteen days of agreeing to serve.

·Limited to one day (additional day may be
allowed at hearing officer’s discretion).

Activities to include
scheduling of the final hearing, prehearing motions to dismiss, and motions
for prehearing discovery.

Hearing

The final hearing is
completed no later than 60 days after the pre-hearing conference.

All evidence is
submitted by all parties within 125 days of the filing of charges, absent
extraordinary circumstances beyond the parties control.

Decision

Written decision within
30 days of the last day of the final hearing.

Within fifteen days of
receipt of the hearing officer’s decision, the BOE must implement the
decision.

Appeal

Not later than ten days
after receipt of the decision an application may be made to the state Supreme
Court to vacate or modify the decision.

The filing or pendency
of an appeal does not delay the implementation of the decision.

Q: What
are the circumstances that can result in an expedited hearing?

A: There
are four categories of expedited hearings:

·Expedited hearings upon revocation of a teaching certificate;

·Expedited hearings on charges of misconduct constituting the
physical or sexual abuse of students;

·Expedited 3020-b hearings based on two consecutive ineffective
APPR ratings; and

·Expedited 3020-b hearings based on three consecutive ineffective
APPR ratings.

Q: What is the
expedited 3020-a timeline for charges arising from the revocation of a teaching
certificate?

A:
The process is as follows with specific expedited timelines highlighted inbold:

ACTION

TIMELINE

PROCESS

Filing
of Charges

·Within the period between actual opening and
closing of school year.

·Within three years unless the alleged
misconduct constitutes a crime.

Filed by Chief School
Administrator with the District Clerk. The Clerk notifies Board of Education
(BOE) immediately.

Disposition
of Charges

·The BOE votes within five days after receipt
of charges.

·BOE decision whether there is probably cause
to move forward with a hearing.

The employee may be
suspended without pay pending an expedited hearing and final determination.

Probable
Cause Hearing

·If BOE decides to
suspend without pay, the district notifies SED within one business day to
request a probable cause hearing.

·SED selects the hearing officer from a
regional rotational list. Failure to accept the case within 24 hours is
deemed a declination.

·Hearing conducted
within ten days of suspension to determine whether BOE decision to suspend
employee without pay should be continued or reversed.

Grounds for
reinstatement of paid status are that probable cause does not support the
charges, or suspension without pay is grossly disproportionate in the
circumstances. Suspensions without pay shall last no longer than 120
days from the decision of the BOE to suspend the employee. The
suspension only relates to employee compensation exclusive of health insurance
and other benefits and guarantees.

Hearing
Request

·Within ten days of receipt of charges,
employee notifies District Clerk to request hearing.

·No request indicates that the right to a
hearing is waived and the BOE will issue a determination within fifteen days.

Upon receipt of the
request for a hearing, the Clerk shall notify the State Education Department
(SED) of the need for a hearing within three working days.

Notice
ofHearing

·SED requests list of hearing officers from
American Arbitration Association.

·Upon receipt, list simultaneously forwarded
to both BOE and employee.

Within fifteen days
after receiving officer list, BOE and employee notify SED of agreed-upon
hearing officer. If no agreement, then SED will appoint the officer.

Pre-Hearing
Conference

·Hearing officer to hold a pre-hearing
conference within ten to fifteen days of agreeing to serve.

·Limited to one day (additional day may be
allowed at officer’s discretion).

Activities to include
scheduling of the final hearing, prehearing motions to dismiss, and motions
for prehearing discovery.

Hearing

The
final hearing begins within seven days of the pre-hearing conferenceand is completed no later than 60 days after the pre-hearing
conference.

All evidence is
submitted by all parties within 125 days of the filing of charges absent
extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the parties.

Decision

Written
decision within ten days of the last day of the final hearing.

Within fifteen days of
receipt of the hearing officer’s decision, the BOE must implement the
decision.

Appeal

Not later than ten days
after receipt of the decision an application may be made to the state Supreme
Court to vacate or modify the decision.

The filing or pendency
of an appeal does not delay the implementation of the decision.

Q: What is the
“streamlined” timeline for teachers receiving two consecutive ineffective
ratings in the new 3020-b process?

A: A
school district or employing boardmaybring charges of incompetence against any classroom teacher or
building principal who receives two consecutive ineffective APPR ratings.

·All such charges brought against a tenured teacher must be in
writing specifying:

·the charges in detail;

·the penalty imposed by the board will be dismissal if the
employee does not request a hearing; and

·the employee’s rights under 3020-b, forwarded to the accused
employee by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested or by
personal delivery; and filed with the clerk or secretary of the school district
or employing board.

·The school must have developed and substantially implemented a
Teacher Improvement Plan (TIP) following the first evaluation in which the
educator was rated ineffective and the immediately preceding evaluation if the
rating was developing under Education Law §3012-c and/or 3012-d.

·The parties jointly select the hearing officer. (The
Commissioner must appoint the hearing officer if the two parties are unable to
agree.)

·The pre-hearing conference must be held within seven days after
the appointment of the hearing officer.

·The hearing must begin within seven days of the pre-hearing
conference.

·The final hearing date must be within 90 days of the employee’s
request for a hearing. Adjournments beyond the 90 day period may be
granted if the hearing officer determines that the delay is due to
circumstances beyond the control of the requesting party and an injustice would
result if the adjournment were not granted.

·The hearing officer must render a decision within 10 days of the
last day of the hearing.

·Within 15 days of receipt of decision, the school board must
implement the decision.

·Not later than ten days after receipt of the decision, an appeal
may be made to the State Supreme Court to vacate or modify the decision.

Q: What is the “streamlined” timeline for teachers receiving
three consecutive ineffective ratings in the new 3020-b process?

A: A
school district or employing boardmustbring charges of incompetence against any classroom teacher or
building principal who receives three consecutive ineffective APPR ratings.

·All charges brought against a tenured teacher must be in writing
specifying:

·the charges in detail;

·the penalty imposed by the board will be dismissal if the
employee does not request a hearing; and

·the employee’s rights under 3020-b, forwarded to the accused
employee by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested or by
personal delivery; and filed with the clerk or secretary of the school district
or employing board.

·The Commissioner of Education selects the hearing officer, not
the parties.

·The final hearing date must be within 30 days after the date of
the employee’s request for a hearing. Adjournments beyond the 30 day period may
be granted if the hearing officer determines that the delay is due to
circumstances beyond the control of the requesting party and an injustice would
result if the adjournment were not granted.

·The hearing officer must render a decision within 10 days of the
last day of the hearing.

·Within 15 days of receipt of decision, the school board must
implement the decision.

·Not later than ten days after receipt of the decision, an appeal
may be made to the State Supreme Court to vacate or modify the decision.

Q: How are “days” defined?

A:Days
are calendar days unless specified otherwise.

Q: How is “teacher” defined?

A: For disciplinary
purposes, a teacher is any professional educator holding a teaching certificate
including but not limited to a classroom teacher, teaching assistant, pupil
personnel services professional, school administrator or supervisor or
superintendent of schools.

For
incompetence procedures based upon the APPR process, it would only include
classroom teachers subject to the APPR process under Section 3012-c or 3012-d
of the Education Law.

Q: What are “Cadet Rights”?

A: The
3020-a hearing process is the sole method by which tenured teachers can be
disciplined in NYS, and the statute provides that no teacher can be compelled
to testify at the hearing. Consequently, it has been established that a
teacher can refuse to answer questions, without being found insubordinate,
during an investigation that the teacher believes could lead to such
disciplinary action. Known as Cadet Rights, this principle was
established through a disciplinary case involving a tenured teacher who was
found guilty of misconduct through a 3020-a hearing. However, the
decision of the hearing officer to dismiss a charge of insubordination was
appealed by the school district. The insubordination charge was related
to the teacher’s refusal to answer questions during an investigation prior to
the hearing In the appeal decision, the Commissioner of Education agreed
that a teacher need not answer questions in any pre-hearing investigation which
precedes a 3020-a hearing. The decision was in turn affirmed by the courts.

Advice to Local Leaders

·Continue to look for additional analysis and information through
NYSUT’s Leader and Member Briefings and presentations at regional conferences.

·Specific questions about tenure and teacher removal as a result
of disciplinary issues or the APPR process should be referred to your NYSUT
Labor Relations Specialist (LRS).

3 comments:

Suppose you return to teaching after a seven year break in service. You were tenured at your old district (obviously, no APPR was done). How long is your probationary period? I have heard conflicting interpretations although the above seems to indicate three years.

TV Appearances by Betsy Combier

Lawline

Contact me with a concern or issue

I assist anyone who needs help, so email me your problem to start the ball rolling! I am a teacher/parent advocate, and I am the editor/writer for this blog and the website parentadvocates.org. I also write about court corruption on my blog "NYC Court Corruption". I am interested in random injustice and the criminalizing of innocent people. If you want to chat you may email me at: betsy.combier@gmail.com and I'm on twitter and have a facebook page too. I'm not an attorney and do not give legal advice.

If you want to talk with me about your 3020-a charges, I consult and go over your case without charge. No fee.

And, in response to the lies of certain individuals who resent my work, the truth is that all conversations are confidential and I do not tape secretly.

Testimonial from an Exonerated Teacher

Dear Betsy,I am forever indebted to you, Betsy, for your expert counsel throughout a horrific ordeal. You worked tirelessly to prove my innocence in a 3020a proceeding that was instigated by a corrupt school district and fueled by lies. My proceedings ended with my complete exoneration, my record expunged and my immediate return to the classroom. We didn't even need to file an appeal! Thank you, Betsy. I am now eligible to retire and enjoy the benefits you helped me to protect. God bless you and the work you do protecting the innocent.Sincerely,Maria Gargano

My Thoughts and Raison d'etre

This blog is about the denial of Constitutional rights by the Mayor, the New York City Department of Education and the Chancellor, New York State and Federal Courts, New York State legislature, and the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), as well as PACs and all parties participating in the business of public school education in New York City, to harm and in neglect of parents, children, and staff of public schools in the five boroughs. These thoughts are not simply mindless conclusions reached out of thin air, but a result of 14 years of research into the NYC DOE and the Courts as a reporter and paralegal.
I am an advocate of Unions and union rights, public schools and charters, and learning online as well as outside of the classroom. I cannot and do not support anyone, whether they be union management, government, private members of the political or legal system, or simply retired teachers with an agenda, if he or she tramples, discards, or rebuffs anyone's individual civil rights. As a reporter, journalist, advocate, researcher and paralegal, I have created this blog to inform the public about my experience working for the UFT and being the parent of four daughters who went through the public school system in NYC, as well as examine issues that flow from the massive denial of due process rights that I saw and have documented. The two most important points you should remember: first, everyone at the New York City Board/Department of Education and all Union bigs are motivated by power and money, and looking good. If anyone dares to blow the whistle on these racketeers, retaliation follows, so be a strategist; second, I am not an Attorney and nothing I write or say is legal advice, simply my thoughts. Take 'em or leave 'em.
Betsy Combier, Editor
NYC Rubber Room Reporter
http://nycrubberroomreporter.blogspot.com
New York Court Corruption
http://newyorkcourtcorruption.blogspot.com
Parentadvocates.org
http://www.parentadvocates.org
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/betsy.combier
Twitter: http://twitter.com/BetsyCombier
The NYC Public Voice
http://nycpublicvoice.blogspot.com/betsy.combier@gmail.com
Lawline July 27, 2011
http://www.teachem.com/lawlinetv/learn/lawline-tv-teachers-unions-the-last-in-first-out-rule/

Principal Anne Seifullah changes her image so that she can keep her job amidst sexting and trysts in the school, Robert Wagner Secondary Sch...

Google + Rubber Room Community

FAITH

When we walk to the edge of all the light we have and take the step into the darkness of the unknown, we must believe that one of two things will happen. There will be something solid for us to stand on or we will be taught to fly. Patrick Overton

Truth Seeks Light - Lies Seek Shadows

Twins Jill Danger (left) and Betsy Combier(right)

sayin like it is

Actions Have Consequences

Writing as Music

Rubber Room teachers wish me a happy birthday (2006)

"Educating the mind without educating the heart is no education at all."

Rubber Room Satire

The Labor Movement

The Teaching Equation

We Can Work Out Our Differences

The E-Accountability Foundation

The E-Accountability Foundation brings you this blog which highlights issues that have or should be read by people interested in civil rights, and accountability. The E-Accountability Foundation is a 501(C)3 organization that holds people accountable for their actions online and, through the internet, seeks to bring justice to anyone who has been harmed without reason. We give the'A for Accountability' Awardto those who are willing to blow the whistle on unjust, misleading, or false actions and claims of the politico-educational complex in order to bring about educational reform in favor of children of all races, intellectual ability and economic status.

AddThis

Performance Management - Office of Labor Relations

From Betsy Combier

The NYC Office of Labor Relations, with the support of the UFT, has issued to principals a document called"Performance Management" on how to get rid of an incompetent teacher. Who is an "incompetent teacher"? Anyone the NYC Department of Education wants to remove from the system because he/she is too senior (makes too much money), is disabled (and therefore cannot be deemed factory-perfect) and/or is other impaired (is a whistleblower, cannot be intimidated, is ethnically challenged - not the 'right' race, etc).

Candace R. McLaren

Director, Office of Special Investigations (OSI)

Google+ Badge

Google+ Followers

Follow by Email

Polo Colon

"Rubber Room"

(1) a space where a worker subject to a disciplinary hearing or other administrative action waits and does no work; generally, a place or personal mind-set of isolation.(2) a literal reference to a padded cell, which is, according to the New Oxford American Dictionary, “a room in a psychiatric hospital with padded walls to prevent violent patients from injuring themselves.”from Double-Tongued Dictionary http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/rubber_room/

"Rubberization"

The word "rubberization" is a new word that is used to describe the process of assigning and paying people to sit and do nothing in a drab room away from their place of employment while their employers make up charges that allege sexual or corporal misconduct without any facts upon which to base the allegation on.

Email Subscriptions powered by FeedBlitz

Theresa Europe, NYC BOE ATU Director

Robin Greenfield

Deputy Counsel to the NYC DOE

UFT Pres. Mike Mulgrew and NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg

UFT umbrella pals

New York State Supreme Court Judge Manuel Mendez

ATR CONNECT

Tenured Teachers who are found to be guilty of misconduct or incompetency at 3020-a but are not terminated, who have blown the whistle on the misconduct of politically favored NYC Department of Education employees, and/or who are simply disliked for any reason can suddenly find themselves in the ATR ("Absent Teacher Reserve") pool - employees without rights or voices, and without chapter leader union representation.

This new group of people are the "new" rubber roomers without representation at the UFT and denied the protection of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, because basically they have been pushed out of their jobs unfairly and under color of law by Mayor Bloomberg and the Chief Executives of the Department of Education who call themselves "Chancellors", "Network Leaders", "Superintendents", etc., consistently without any facts or evidence to support the false claims.

A group of teachers who are, or were, made into ATRs, ATR Polo Colon, and I, Betsy Combier, an advocate for transparency and labor/employment rights, have joined together to expose the denial of due process, civil and human rights by chiefs of the NYC Department of Education (NYC DOE), certain arbitrators at 3020-a, leaders of the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), the "investigators" -agents who work for the Special Commissioner of Investigation (SCI), Office of Special Investigation (OSI), and the Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO) - and the Attorneys who work for the New York United Teachers (NYSUT), and the New York Law Department (Corporation Counsel).

In order to protect the safety of those who join this group to promote an end to the "Rubberization" process described on this blog since 2007, names of those who tell their stories will, for now, remain anonymous if the person so desires, and Polo and I will be the gatekeepers. So if you are an ATR, or know a story involving an ATR or someone re-assigned or about to go into a 3020-a, please use the email address advocatz77@gmail.com and give us your contact information. We will protect your anonymity and hold onto your privacy.

Betsy Combier and Polo Colon, Editors

FAITH When we walk to the edge of all the light we have and take the step into the darkness of the unknown, we must believe that one of two things will happen. There will be something solid for us to stand on or we will be taught to fly.

Patrick Overton

We have forty million reasons for failure but not a single excuse.Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

The Re-Assignment Overview by Betsy Combier

The New York City Board of Education decided in 2002 to rid the public school system of staff who interfered with their takeover and control. The criteria for a "good teacher" is now, more often than not, a "silent teacher", a person who never asks questions, is younger than 40, is making a salary below $50,000, does not care about kids and what they learn, or whether or not money (books, supplies, equipment, etc) is missing. When a teacher or staff member of a school dares to do the right thing and speaks out about wrong-doing - this person is often called a "whistleblower" or "flamethrower" - or, simply is not liked for any reason by the Principal/NYC personnel, suddenly he/she is accused of something by somebody ("given a label of "A", "B", "C", and so on) and whisked away to a drab room called a temporary re-assignment center or "rubber room". Members of the offices of the Special Commissioner of Investigation or the Office of Special Investigations then start work on building a case against the person to justify their being thrown in prison, declared "unfit for duty", or, as Mr. Joel Klein has said, characterized as "guilty of sexual activities and corporal punishment" against the children of New York City.The stories of the people I have met who sit every day in the 8 rubber rooms of NYC prove to me that Mr. Klein is very wrong about his assessment, and this blog is created to prove it to you.

Puppy Snooze

US Department of Labor ELAWS

Aeri Pang, Gotcha Squad Attorney

Attorney Pang, red dress, now chief Attorney For New York State Supreme Court Judge Cynthia Kern

New York State Supreme Court Judge Cynthia Kern

NYC EdStats You Can Use

$12.5 billion: Annual New York City Department of Education (DOE) budget (2002)

$21 billion: Annual New York City DOE budget (2009)
1,719: Number officials employed by the DOE central administration in June 2002

2,442: Number of officials employed by the central administration as of November 2008

2: Number of DOE officials earning more than $180,000 per year in 2004.

22: Number of DOE officials earning more than $180,000 per year in 2007.

5: Number of DOE public relations staffers in 2003.

23: Number of DOE public relations staffers in 2008.

944: Number of contracts approved by DOE in 2008, at a total cost of $1.9 billion.

20: Percentage of contracts that exceeded estimated cost by at least 25 percent.

$67.5 million: Annual budget of Project Arts, a decade-old program that was the sole source of dedicated funding for arts education. It was eliminated in 2007.

86: Percentage of principals who said in a 2008 poll that they were unable to provide a quality education because of excessive class sizes in their schools.

100,000: Number of seats DOE plans to provide for charter school students by 2012.

25,000: Number of seats DOE plans to build under 2010 to 2014 capital plan.

66,895: Number of K-3 school-children in classes of 25 or more during the 2008-09 school year.

15,440: Average number of seats per year built during the last six years of the Rudolph Giuliani administration.

10,895: Average number of seats per year built during the first six years of the Bloomberg administration.

27.2: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2001-02 who were Black.

14.1: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2006-07 who were Black.

53.3: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2001-02 who were white.

65.5: Percentage of newly hired teachers in 2006-07 who were white.

76: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Latino students in 8th grade English Language Arts (ELA) in 2003.

75: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Hispanic students in 8th grade ELA in 2008.

77: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Hispanic 8th graders in math in 2003.

81: Percentage of white and Asian students who performed better than the average Black and Hispanic 8th graders in math in 2008.

54: Percentage of New York City public school parents who disapproved of Mayor Bloomberg’s handling of education, according to a March 2009 Quinnipiac poll.

Sources: New York City Council, New York City Comptroller’s Office, New York Daily News, New York Post, Eduwonkette, Quinnipiac Institute, Black Educator, Class Size Matters, New York City Schools Under Bloomberg and Klein.

Betsy Combier and NYSUT lawyer Chris Callagy

The New York City Whistle Award

NYC Whistlers, Winners of the NYC Whistle Award

...are those individuals in New York City who are willing to whistleblow unjust, misleading, or false actions and claims of the politico-educational complex in order to bring about educational reform in favor of children of all races, intellectual ability and economic status. Whistlers ask questions that need to be asked, such as "where is the money?" and "Why does it have to be this way?" and they never give up.

These people have withstood adversity and have held those who seem not to believe in honesty, integrity and compassion accountable for their actions.

Congratulations, and keep up the good work!

Betsy Combier

Special Commissioner of Investigation Richard Condon

Condon "qualified" for his current post after Bloomberg lowered standards; who will leash him?

A great teacher

After being interviewed by the school administration, the prospective teacher said: 'Let me see if I've got this right.

'You want me to go into that room with all those kids, correct their disruptive behavior, observe them for signs of abuse, monitor their dress habits, censor their T-shirt messages, and instill in them a love for learning.

'You want me to check their backpacks for weapons, wage war on drugs and sexually transmitted diseases, and raise their sense of self esteem and personal pride.

'You want me to teach them patriotism and good citizenship, sportsmanship and fair play, and how to register to vote, balance a checkbook, and apply for a job 'You want me to check their heads for lice, recognize signs of antisocial behavior, and make sure that they all pass the final exams.

'You also want me to provide them with an equal education regardless of their handicaps, and communicate regularly with their parents in English, Spanish or any other language, by letter, telephone, newsletter, and report card.

'You want me to do all this with a piece of chalk, a blackboard, a bulletinboard, a few books, a big smile, and a starting salary that qualifies me for food stamps. 'You want me to do all this and then you tell me. . . I CAN'T PRAY?

NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelly

Joel Klein's famous statement about rubber room teachers and staff

On November 27, 2006, temporarily re-assigned teacher (TRT) Polo Colon asked Joel Klein, the "pretend" Chancellor of the NYC public school system, if he had voted to terminate teachers at the secret Executive Session held just before the public meeting of the Panel For Educational Policy.Mr. Klein answered,"We did not vote to terminate you. We did vote to terminate a teacher in executive Session...in fact, we voted to terminate two teachers. It's perfectly consistent with the law.Many teachers have been charged with sexual activities and some are charged with corporal punishment...I have no interest in removing people who are qualified to teach, I can assure you, because I dont get any return...and in fact, I have complained publicly about how long this process drags out. But our first concern will always be and, as a former lawyer and somebody who clerked on the United States Supreme Court I will tell you, there is no violation of due process whatsoever..."- extracted from the audiotape of the PEP meeting bought by Betsy Combier after filing a FOIL request to the NYC BOE

November 26, 2007 Candelight Vigil

The School Law Blog

A Review of Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools by Betsy Combier

Lydia Segal's book puts the NYC, Chicago, and California Departments of Education on notice....we who have read this book know more about how the system is not there for our kids than "you" want us to know. Lydia Segal's book Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools changes the public school reform movement forever. We can no longer assume that more money allocated to our schools will "fix" the disaster that is our public school system.

Lydia Segal draws on her 10 years of undercover investigation and research in over five urban school districts, including the three largest, New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, and the two most decentralized, Houston and Edmonton, Canada, to provide, in her new book Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools, the details of the corruption, theft, fraud, and patronage that has overrun our public school establishment for several decades. There is no question that anyone who is interested in school reform -this means anyone who pays taxes, is a parent or guardian of a child attending school and/or who works toward a goal of establishing an education system that puts children first - must read this book. Ms. Segal's research and information on the education establishment's 'dark' side outrages the reader, and incites us to demand change. Her book therefore, is much more than a book, it is a call to action. We cannot be bystanders any longer to the systemic abuse she so vividly describes, and we will never be able to listen in the same way ever again to school Principals, Superintendents, school custodians or district board members as they request more money "to help the children."

The book's detailed reports on the corruption and crime in our public schools, supported by 52 pages of interview notes, references and specific examples, provide irrefutable evidence that the current failures of our nation's public schools are not due to the lack of money but the impossibility of getting the money to the children who need it and for whom the money is allocated in the first place. Recent statistics show that students of all ages are not learning what they need to know, schools are overcome with violence, teachers are demoralized, and yet billions of dollars are literally shovelled into the system every year. The New York City school system receives more than $16 billion every year; Los Angeles, $7 billion; and Chicago, $3.6 billion. Where does this money go? We have all asked this question as we have walked through school hallways dodging the paint falling off the walls and ceilings, watching our children sitting on broken chairs, using bathrooms without running water or toilet paper, and struggling to achieve their personal best without the services and resources they are supposed to have. Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools is the first book ever to systematically examine school waste and corruption and how to fight it. Ms. Segal, an undercover school investigator turned law professor, documents where the money goes, how waste and fraud embedded in the operation of large school bureaucracies siphon money from classrooms, distort educational priorities, block initiatives, and what we can do to bring badly-needed change. She describes in detail how only a small percentage of the money allocated to students in our public schools actually gets used by them due to corruption and waste, and how city school systems scoring lowest on standardized tests tend to have the biggest criminal records and most payroll padding. Coding problems, the procurement process, compartmentalization and opacity of information leave administrators with only two options: good corruption (which ultimately helps the kids) and bad corruption (which never helps anyone but the perpetrator and his/her allies and accomplices). Indeed, the system fights those who try the good corruption route.

Ms. Segal argues that the problem is not usually bad people, but a bad system that focuses on process at the expense of results. Decades of rules and regulations along with layers of top-down supervision make it so hard to do business with school systems that they encourage the very fraud and waste they were designed to curb. She tells us about how the "godfathers" and "godmothers" (the school board members) obtain jobs for their "pieces" in order to protect the systemic waste and fraud from being dismantled or exposed. Fortunately, she writes, there are good people involved in the corruption as well who must violate the rules in order to get their jobs done. Nonetheless, absurdities abound: school systems following rules to save every penny spend thousands of dollars hunting down checks as small as $25; it takes so long to pay vendors for their work that some have to bribe school officials to move their checks along; caring Principals who want to fix leaky toilets may have to pay workers under the table because submitting a work order through the central office could, and often does, take years. Meanwhile, those who pilfer from classrooms get away with it because the pyramidal structure of large districts makes schools inherently difficult to oversee. What makes Battling Corruption in America's Public Schools a must-read is not only the fascinating - and depressing - details of the systemic wrong-doing but also Ms. Segal's suggestions for reform, based on the proven track records of school systems across North America that have successfully reduced waste and fraud and have pushed more resources into schools.

The pathology of the corruption suggests the remedy, Ms. Segal says, which is decentralization of power into the schools and the hands of the Principals. Distilling what successful school systems have done, Segal advocates new forms of oversight that do not clog up school systems and recommends giving principals more discretion over their school budgets as well as holding them accountable for job performance. She argues for "autonomy in exchange for performance accountability" as part of a bold, far-reaching plan for reclaiming our schools. Her conclusion is logical and convincing. Everyone who reads this book will find his or her perception of public school education changed forever. We cannot accept any longer that a generation of children has been abused by a system that is so full of greed and corruption without screaming "stop!" and "Your game is up!"

Segal reveals how systemic waste and fraud siphon millions of dollars from urban classrooms and shows how money is lost in systems that focus on process rather than on results, as well as how regulations established to curb waste and fraud provide perverse incentives for new forms of both. Anyone who is interested in school reform--this means anyone who pays taxes, is a parent or guardian of a child attending school, and/or who works toward a goal of establishing an education system that puts children first--must read this book. --

Lydia G. Segal is Associate Professor of Criminal Law and Public Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York.